Alan Grayson Def Comedy Jam: Congressman Rails On Fed From House Floor, Demands Audit (VIDEO)

Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) mocked the Federal Reserve in what is best described as a standup comedy routine on the floor of the House of Representatives Thursday.

"I want to congratulate everyone in America, because you now own a hotel chain," Grayson began. "I know what you're thinking -- you're thinking: 'That's funny, I don't remember buying the Red Roof Inn.' But the Federal Reserve Bank, in its wisdom, has done it for you. The Federal Reserve Bank has seen to it that you have the pleasure of ownership of this delightful chain of hotels that extends from sea to shining sea."

"One of the properties," Grayson continued, "happens to be the Red Roof Inn convention center property, right in Orlando, right in my district -- I am so proud. I think I'll stop by there and ask for a free room."

Grayson maintains this verve while explaining a leveraged buyout gone bust that apparently left the Fed holding the Red Roof Inn as part of a pile of crappy assets. "The Federal Reserve became the sucker of last resort. And in doing so, the Federal Reserve made you -- you, America! -- the sucker of last resort."

WATCH:

At issue is the Fed's extraordinary lending to banks during the financial crisis in 2008. Grayson made his speech to urge the Senate to pass Wall Street reform with a provision that will allow the Government Accountability Office to audit the Fed and provide a full accounting of how the Fed used taxpayer money to prop up the financial system. The reform bill that passed the House contained an audit; the Senate will vote on a compromise version (most likely) on Tuesday.

"We think we have an amendment now that should have a whole lot of support, and we look forward to seeing it passed," said Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the amendment's sponsor, in an interview with HuffPost on Friday. "What most Americans are concerned about is the expanded power of the Fed during the financial crisis."

Sanders softened his amendment to win the support of the White House and top Democrats in the Senate. The amendment would instruct the GAO to audit the Fed's lending and cough up the details in December.

Rep. Ron Paul, the Texas Republican who co-sponsored the House version of the Fed audit provision, blasted Sanders's compromise in a YouTube video on Thursday -- but Grayson put out a statement of qualified support on Friday.

"If Senator Sanders's Federal Reserve Transparency Amendment passes in its current form, as we hope and expect, then America will finally find out about every secret bailout and 'help for our friends' slush fund established and perpetrated by the Federal Reserve in the past three years," said Grayson. "Yet when it does pass, the Sanders Amendment is only a partial victory. The most important improvement over what the Sanders Amendment offers would be to subject the Fed to audit for what it does going forward. To say that America can learn about only what the Fed has done already is like trying to drive a car by looking only in the rearview mirror.

"The Fed is an institution that has the power to hand out hundreds of billions of dollars on a whim. Because of that power, the Fed must always be subject to independent audit -- completely, and without reservation."

Comments

[Smurf Daddy]

06:22 AM on 06/17/2010

I like Grayson, Sanders and Paul (Ron). They could run on a ticket together and I'd probably vote for them.... Now who would be on the top of the ticket? Oooooh.....

[mcartri]

12:55 AM on 06/17/2010

Grayson & Bernie Sanders are what congressmen look like when corporations don't own them. You can count on two-hands politicians like them. They are rare indeed.

[greeneyes51654m]

09:21 PM on 06/16/2010

Grayson was priceless this time. I called a lot of friends up just to get them to watch and listen to him here. Republicans that were very impressed and will back him and Paul all the way.

[djekizian]

09:25 PM on 05/09/2010

What's the difference between the Fed and a counterfeiter??

[AvgAmericanWokenUp]

09:22 AM on 05/14/2010

The Fed paid good money back in 1913 to do it legally.

[joebhed]

08:40 PM on 05/09/2010

Thanks so much for your brilliant performance, Mr. Grayson.

The clearest point may be how little we know, irregardless.
Take for instance the exact relationship between we the taxpaying people and some private entity that serves as our central bank utilizing our sovereign power to create the nation's money in order to support its crony corporatistas.
Do "we" own the RedRoofInns?
Who actually controls the accounts of these assets?
Do they represent the interests of the taxpayers, or do they represent the interests of their Boards of Directors?
Why have a system where private people can use our money system to make things happen and then make money by betting that those things happen?

Frederick Soddy
Frederick Soddy became a Fellow of the Chemical Society in 1899.
He was, in 1910, elected a Fellow of the Royal Society, England’s oldest and most prestigious scientific organization.
He was awarded the Cannizzaro Prize in Rome, 1913.
He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1921.
He was awarded an L.L.D. by Glasgow University in 1934.
He was a foreign member of the Italian, Russian, and Swedish Academies of Science.
He was President of the New Europe Group.
He was Vice-President and a founding member (1936) of the Economic Reform Club and Institute.
He was President of the Institute of Atomic Information.
He invented a machine for solving the Cubic Equation with Three Real Roots.

And he had a unique, rather public, view on the role of money.

[Saidas]

10:02 AM on 05/10/2010

Er...there is no such word as irregardless; it is a double negative. Regardless is what you mean.

[joebhed]

12:09 PM on 05/10/2010

Thanks, Saidas, for catching my meager attempt at satire as illiteracy. You're probably right that it's important to only use words that meet the proper usage in the selected language.
That it is a double-negative does not mean there is no such word, by the way.
There are many double-negatives, and applying the double-negative meaning, it could still work in my sentence.

From Merriam-Webster Online Edition
Main Entry: ir·re·gard·less
Pronunciation: \ˌir-i-ˈgärd-ləs\
Function: adverb
Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless
Date: circa 1912

nonstandard : regardless
Usage: Irregardless - originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead. - END

PS I hope you read through my whole comment.
Thanks.

[floodberg]

02:00 AM on 05/09/2010

Progressive Democrats and the Independents that traditionally vote Democratic are backing Grayson. 'Independent' is the fastest growing segment of the political voters, and can make or break a candidate. http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1516

Democrats are trying to defend Obama (and the Democratic Party) to keep everyone on Obama's side, and prevent a voter backlash. Democrats are painted as 'wanting to legislate Big Money' (Guajiro, below.) Having just busted a lobbyist on the FCC thread, I'm rather sure that there are a few Democratic paid lobbyists working this thread. Obama knows he can't win without these votes. http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1444/obamas-challenge-december-approval-conservative-shift

Will one brave Obama advocate care to defend his figures? I've got them, and I'll post them. This is the fourth time this Indy/former Obama voter has asked, and no one's been able to. If you want Progressive and Indy votes, this is what you have to do.

If you're a paid lobbyist, here's your chance to suceed where AltonEDrew failed.

[dl63]

03:28 PM on 05/08/2010

To be against this amendment is the antithesis of Democracy. Democracy in secrecy is not Democracy. at least not for very long.

[jekyll]

03:37 PM on 05/08/2010

I prefer the language in HR 1207 which Sanders unfortunately gutted. The FED's FOMC activities and deals with foriegn central banks are exempt. Sen. Vitter is reintroducing the original language on Tuesday for an up or down vote. We need to know EVERYTHING the FED is up too!

[floodberg]

10:58 PM on 05/08/2010

Seconded, Jekyll (and I presume your moniker is a reference to this.) The creation of FEDRES was a gimme to JPMorgan, who saved the 1907 debacle, but Rockefeller (his son in law) organized it, and the Robber Barons were in business, and still are.

What we may be told of the last 3 years won't be much; these guys plan a decade in advance. What we need to do is decharter FEDRES, audit them fully, and hold them and our legislators accountable for the manipulation of the gold market, which is actionable and provable.

Determining whether to expand or contract our money supply is the domain of Federal power, and should be done by our government alone. FEDRES money management was something that Volker didn't do well before, resulting in the recession of 1980. Greenspan, another protege of Rockefeller, 'missed' this crash, so Volker came back in to fix this. Of course, you can start at 1976 and see the Volker/Greenspan team expand and cause, then fix, all the major crashes, if you spend an hour with wikipedia. It's too scary for most people to envision, but I lived through them and it was a warning before every crash.

The admin let GS off, but had the guts to not prosecute the 'sacrifice' they offered. The Congress and President work for these guys, so they won't do anything unless we back them into a corner. This summer, that's going to happen.

[TerraByte]

02:46 PM on 05/08/2010

Grayson - Franken 2016

[dl63]

03:29 PM on 05/08/2010

I much prefer 2012

[floodberg]

11:01 PM on 05/08/2010

I'll take either as President, and make it 2012 Indy. I've gone Indy twice before, and I won't vote for Obama again.

Franken's been a very pleasant surprise, and I think he might be better as President, with Grayson in 'training.'

Give me this ticket, I send you a check.

[seafarer00]

04:59 PM on 05/08/2010

Let me ask, why no praise for Rep. Ron Paul who actually wrote the legislation and that Rep Grayson was one of 319 House Members who co sponsdered the bill.

You have such high praise for Grayson, but Rep. Ron Paul has been trying to audit the FED for 30 years and only after this mess is there any support for it.

[Harrygton]

07:42 PM on 05/08/2010

I am a progressive and I do give praise to Dr. Ron Paul for his position on this and against the Neocon's Agenda of American Hegemony!

[floodberg]

11:06 PM on 05/08/2010

Ron Paul, like Kucinich, are both as clean as they can be. I really wish I could have endorsed either one for president, but they both get 'out there' and become unelectable. If we get any combo of Grayson/Franken, I'm sure they'll both have positions waiting; I'm thinking TREASURY and the soon to be disbanded FEDRES, but I'm flexible as long as they are there.

Any chance we do a referendum nationwide on public only campaign financing, and throw in a limitation of Congressional salaries/benefits/expenses, and make our congressional ethics examinations, and full financial disclosures a public affair on CSPAN, with all exhibits and documents available online for kibbitzers? Just an idea. I think we should get some entertainment value for our tax bucks.

[foxisms]

02:08 PM on 05/08/2010

Grayson!
Grayson!
Grayson!

[filo]

02:35 PM on 05/08/2010

2016!
2016!
2016!

[floodberg]

12:06 AM on 05/09/2010

2012; I can't vote for Obama again.

[kalijuri]

01:43 PM on 05/08/2010

who is the representative that yielded to grayson? he says at the very end, 'i thought you were going to talk about financial reform?'

uh, mr. grayson WAS talking about financial reform.

lord help us all!

[BreezyinVA]

01:51 PM on 05/08/2010

I'd like to know. Whoever he is, he shouldn't be running the "progressive" financial reform session.
This must have been way over his head.

[guajiro]

02:06 PM on 05/08/2010

It appears there may have been some time alloted for guests to speak in the chamber (hence the empty seats) and this individual's topic was "financial reform", as he stated. He apparently yielded his time but was then too ignorant to realize that Alan was making his points for him far more strongly than he could ever have. Since he appeared to me to be disconcerted I can only surmise that his main interest was in going down in posterity for speaking in the Chamber rather than recording for posterity an effectual message of pro-Fed regulation, whether by him, Alan, or anyone else.

[floodberg]

02:03 AM on 05/09/2010

See my post at the top of the thread. I'm inviting you to defend your party, if you can.

[oneputtsteven]

01:31 PM on 05/08/2010

I love Greyson and I support in theory what he is trying to do with a Fed Audit. However, I think we should proceed very carefully. Just think if the Fed NEEDED to intervene in some bank and some Fake News ding dong got a hold of an audit and misconstrued the whole thing to demonize DEMS.

[guajiro]

01:46 PM on 05/08/2010

Well, if there are Dems that are not playing by the rules (and every Party has morons), then let the chips fall where they may. That's the whole point of an audit....the exposure of fraud,etc.

[floodberg]

12:09 AM on 05/09/2010

I'm an progressive (went Independent 30 years ago) and normally vote Dem, but not anymore. Guarjiro, or some Dem, do you have the courage to step up and prove it? Reply, I'll post some stats, and you explain them if you can. If I don't get any replies, I know you are running like scared little dogs.

[seafarer00]

05:01 PM on 05/08/2010

Since its inception, the Federal Reserve has always operated in the shadows, without sufficient scrutiny or oversight of its operations. While the conventional excuse is that this is intended to reduce the Fed’s susceptibility to political pressures, the reality is that the Fed acts as a foil for the government. Whenever you question the Fed about the strength of the dollar, they will refer you to the Treasury, and vice versa. The Federal Reserve has, on the one hand, many of the privileges of government agencies, while retaining benefits of private organizations, such as being insulated from Freedom of Information Act requests.

[joebhed]

12:21 PM on 05/10/2010

Not exactly, sailor.
When they obfuscated the nature of the Federal Reserve in its second coming, they placed the Secretary of the Treasury as a member of the Board of Governors, and as the Chair of the Board.
In addition, another PUBLIC, Constitutional Officer - that of the Comptroller of the Currency was also a member of the Fed's Board.
So, at its inception, the Fed had a strong public presence that prevented the workings of the body in secrecy.
We had 2 public members out of seven.
Totally agree with the rest of your comment here.
backatcha.

[MicheleMoore-Happy1]

01:15 PM on 05/08/2010

Very well done!!! An entertained mind is an attentive mind. Rep.Grayson presents his points so people will enjoy paying attention and will remember the importance of auditing the Fed.

[leajazz]

10:49 PM on 05/08/2010

Well done, I agree!

[guajiro]

01:12 PM on 05/08/2010

What Mr.Grayson is doing in the House is beyond me. This man's fine intellect needs to be in the Senate where he can do a lot of good. Currently the Senate is comprised of Corporate bootlickers on both sides of the politicial aisle. Alan's presence, I am sure, would put some order there.

[floodberg]

11:21 PM on 05/08/2010

We need him to balance Franken in the Senate. I can tell you as an old trial lawyer, none of the MD people on either side qualify as even vaguely honest.

[jekyll]

12:08 PM on 05/08/2010

It is finally nice to see the liberals join the Libertarians on their crusade to audit and ultimately end he FED. Ron Paul started this movement decades ago. It is nice to see that a progressive and a Libertarian can come together on on something. It is just a shame that Sanders sold out all the bipartisan grassroots by watering down HR 1207.

[guajiro]

01:25 PM on 05/08/2010

Sorry, you're daydreaming. No one's joining the Libertarians to eliminate the Fed. You caucus with the Republican Party and vote bootstrap and lockstep with them against Democratic legislation, try getting them to do it for you. What Democrats stand for, and have always stood for, is regulation of the big interests, whether in the government or in the private sector, legislation that Libertarians have always voted in union with the Republicans to block. The Fed is nothing more than socialization of the risks big banks take.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

02:29 PM on 05/08/2010

You had better check your facts again, guajiro. Ron Paul has never voted 'lockstep' with the Republican party and to accuse Libertarians (specifically those of us who follow the Austrian School of Economics) is insulting to say the least. Perhaps you need to remove the false Left/Right partisan blinders perched upon your nose.

[jekyll]

03:25 PM on 05/08/2010

Once again the left/right paradigm rears its ugly head. Too bad. Also, the Libertarians hardly ever caucus with the GOP. You need to get your facts straight. As far as more regulation - it is a myth. Regulating a failed system is laughable. This is why going after the FED and eliminating it would actually be going after the cause instead of sticking bandaids on the problem.

[BreezyinVA]

01:38 PM on 05/08/2010

I'm a long-time liberal and I've been railing against the Fed for just as long. Watch the Money Masters. http://www.themoneymasters.com It has nothing to do with Libertarianism. It has to do with reality.

[jekyll]

03:31 PM on 05/08/2010

My point was that Ron Paul was the ONLY politician going after the FED for the better part of 4 decades. He is also a follower of Austrian economics, which have been calling out the FED since the 20's. The money masters is a great documentary, however Ron Paul has been preaching it far longer. All you need to do is youtube his speeches on the House Floor and during Congressional Hearings. His book "End the FED" goes into detail about his debates with former Fed chairmans. Grayson is the first progressive politician to go on the attack against the FED, and I applaud it.

[sheoples]

12:01 PM on 05/08/2010

where's the punchline???

you rock grayson!!!!